Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-06-2012, 07:17 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
As others mentioned, with the advent of the D800, I personally see the extra reach argument not nearly as strong as it once was. Moving forward, it will probably get more extreme. Higher pixel density on APS-C probably won't hold up as well as FF (say, 36mp APS-C vs. 60mp FF of similar technology). APS-C does have physical benefits in convenience, so I don't think they meet the same needs or will ever completely go away as long as DSLRs exist.

12-06-2012, 07:51 PM   #77
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,989
QuoteOriginally posted by abacus07 Quote
Are you really expecting the mythical Pentax FF camera to use an old sensor like the D700? The discussion is about the loss of reach if someone upgrades to the Pentax FF when it is released.
Of course not, although there are plenty of people who use D700s today. However, there are plenty of 24 megapixel APS-C cameras out there and I expect Pentax to have one in the spring. I also doubt if Pentax will be able to use the D800 sensor for awhile as Nikon probably has it locked up for now. So if Pentax had a full frame camera with 24 megapixels and a crop frame with the same, there should be more magnification on the crop frame for a given focal length.
12-06-2012, 08:00 PM   #78
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,691
This is not an argument over sensor technology - pixel density and resolution have their virtues. But the point I made was assuming the same pixel density. Hence, yes, the D800 sensor will be the comparison, and even still, there is no extra reach with more cropped formats, it is merely cropping.

I'm not suggesting the D700 will provide more IQ than the K-5.
And if Pentax did come out with a 24Mp FF camera, I'd opt for the K-5.
I agree that the Pentax FF has to be at least 36Mp to offer an IQ advantage over their existing flagship APS-C. I can't see that not happening.
12-06-2012, 08:04 PM   #79
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,533
QuoteQuote:
Well, as far as I can tell, you get additional magnification as long as pixel density is higher on the APS-C than on full frame (often true). If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image.
Exactly.

This is the absolute non-sense that happens when you get into this discussion.
It's not a crop because you are using two different lenses. A 50 on an FF and a 35 on the APS-c just for example. One cannot be a crop of the other if you are using different lenses.

One is not a crop of the other because there are two different pixel densities.

Using this type of type of language is not an attempt to inform, it's an attempt to confuse.

With a 16 MP FF sensor and a 50mm lens you get virtually the same image you get with a 16 MP APS-c image and 35 mm lens. Where in this description is there a crop?

What you have is the same size image with a shorter less expensive lens. That advantage will continue until the FF sensor gets to 36 MP. Until that point you will have a larger image from a "crop" sensor. Call it you what you want, although I'd suggest "crop" is not as appropriate as reach. Crop implies making the image smaller. Using a smaller sensor doesn't as long as it has the same pixel count meaning denser pixels. Once you have a 36 MP FF image, then you have a crop situation. Until you use that sensor, you get more subject in your frame with a higher MP crop sensor.

When you change lenses from a 100mm to a 150 mm lens on a 16 MP FF camera, it produces pretty much the same affect as if you change bodies and put on a 16 MP APS-c body on the 100mm lens instead of the longer lens on the FF camera.. Both actions give you virtually the same image. How can you say one gives you more reach, and the other doesn't?

Practically, using a longer lens or using an APS-c body both give you more reach.


Last edited by normhead; 12-06-2012 at 08:10 PM.
12-06-2012, 08:32 PM   #80
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,691
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
With a 16 MP FF sensor and a 50mm lens you get virtually the same image you get with a 16 MP APS-c image and 35 mm lens. Where in this description is there a crop
There has been no mention of the use of different lenses. The whole time I have been discussing the effect of the SAME lens with the SAME subject at the SAME subject-to-camera distance between formats. If you have the setup you describe, of course you will get the same result.

See Bob Atkins' article.
I think there is a lot of overthinking happening over this.
12-06-2012, 09:02 PM   #81
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Have you used a K-01?
You mean it doesn't even pass that stinker bar? I heard some people were happy with it - particularly in the designer community.
12-06-2012, 09:32 PM   #82
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image.
That is right, but look at the trend:

Previous generation:

FF had: 12MP (D700), 21MP (5DII) - top: 21MP
APS-C had: 16MP (K-5), 18MP (60D, 7D) - top: 18MP

ratio: 21/18 = 1.17

This generation:

FF has: 36MP (D800), 22MP (5DIII), 24MP (A99) - top: 36MP
APS-C is improved with the 24MP APS-C sensor but most cameras are still 16-18MP - top: 24MP

ratio: 36/24 = 1.5

The ratio is increasing. It will get proportional to the sensor area in one or two more generations of FF sensors.

To simplify calculations, I will use a factor of 2 for the surface difference between the formats (I know it's a bit more but I'm too lazy to pull a calculator).

D800's 36MP gives 18MP with an APS-C crop. Yes, 24MP cameras offer more, but that is just 30% more resolution, which is less than the jump we had for APS-C from 10MP in K10D to 15MP in K-7 - and I cannot say that that resolution jump has necessarily made my K-7 shots much better. With the D700 it was tricky - cropping to APS-C would give you just a measly 6MP - yes, the "reach" argument made sense there. Now, even the 5DIII provides 12MP in an APS-C crop - that is plenty of resolution for professional work. Even if FF sensors won't get similar densities as APS-C ones - not because of technical reasons, but because of economical ones, their resolution is high enough that it just won't matter anymore.
12-07-2012, 04:25 AM   #83
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,989
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
That is right, but look at the trend:

Previous generation:

FF had: 12MP (D700), 21MP (5DII) - top: 21MP
APS-C had: 16MP (K-5), 18MP (60D, 7D) - top: 18MP

ratio: 21/18 = 1.17

This generation:

FF has: 36MP (D800), 22MP (5DIII), 24MP (A99) - top: 36MP
APS-C is improved with the 24MP APS-C sensor but most cameras are still 16-18MP - top: 24MP

ratio: 36/24 = 1.5

The ratio is increasing. It will get proportional to the sensor area in one or two more generations of FF sensors.

To simplify calculations, I will use a factor of 2 for the surface difference between the formats (I know it's a bit more but I'm too lazy to pull a calculator).

D800's 36MP gives 18MP with an APS-C crop. Yes, 24MP cameras offer more, but that is just 30% more resolution, which is less than the jump we had for APS-C from 10MP in K10D to 15MP in K-7 - and I cannot say that that resolution jump has necessarily made my K-7 shots much better. With the D700 it was tricky - cropping to APS-C would give you just a measly 6MP - yes, the "reach" argument made sense there. Now, even the 5DIII provides 12MP in an APS-C crop - that is plenty of resolution for professional work. Even if FF sensors won't get similar densities as APS-C ones - not because of technical reasons, but because of economical ones, their resolution is high enough that it just won't matter anymore.
I understand, however for now, the only full frame camera that truly equals APS-C with regard to reach is the D800, which is still pretty pricey. And that is assuming you ignore all of the 24 megapixel APS-C cameras that are out there. Certainly at some point we max out lenses and run into diffraction issues as well. I wonder how well a kit lens on Nikon D3200 will perform...

One other question is if Pentax decides that they can't do sensor stabilization with a full frame sensor, would that even the score between the cameras? Certainly you gain a couple of stops with shake reduction that you would lose going to full frame, particularly when using existing primes.

12-07-2012, 07:11 AM   #84
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,533
QuoteQuote:
And that is assuming you ignore all of the 24 megapixel APS-C cameras that are out there. Certainly at some point we max out lenses and run into diffraction issues as well. I wonder how well a kit lens on Nikon D3200 will perform...
One of the notions I float around in my head is that the practical limit of APS-c using current technology is about 8 MP and that for FF it's 18mp. IN this view both the D800 and Pentax K5 are a 2x oversample. If you understand oversampling, you also understand that the biggest difference is when you go from 1x to 2x. The next over sample 3x would be at 24 for APS-c. And the improvement would be minimal. Looking at 24 MP APS-c and 16 MP APS-c images that have blown up in photoshop side by side, you can see the evidence I use to support that. My guess is that until there are different sensor technologies, we've hit a wall. It can be theoretically demonstrated, the sensors are already at their max resolution in most colours (red, yellow, green,) although there is the opportunity to resolve more in the blue spectrum. But it has yet to be established that resolving more in one spectrum will make a better image if the others are already maxed out.

That's my best guess to explain why the 24 MP cameras don't excel compared to the 16 MP K-5 images. Of course it's based on a few very crude observations and could be complete hot air, it's more a suspicion than a theory. But, I'm still waiting for the images from a camera that prove me wrong. I think that Pentax with the K-5 and Nikon with the D800, both know they are in a sweet spot determined by the most useful pixel size to capture the visible spectrum of light. Sure they could resolves a lot more creating images from UV light, but we don't even see that spectrum so what would be the point? It wouldn't probably create unrealistic images.
12-07-2012, 09:56 AM   #85
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,989
Well, I guess the question is how much improvement in resolution there is, even between the D600 and the D800.

I think how much resolution improvement you get from one camera to another depends on the quality of glass you are using, as well as the overall shooting situation. You are most likely to see benefit in the studio shooting with controlled lights, whereas in real world situations, shooting above base iso, I am sure a lot of the resolution is lost.
12-07-2012, 10:04 AM   #86
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cairo West Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 73
if the DA* lenses can be used backwards compatible i will get a full frame and use my older lenses also. if not i will stay with the K5. i am using an old manual focus SMC f4.5 500 MM with and without a 2X converter on my K5 and K10 now.
12-07-2012, 10:08 AM   #87
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cairo West Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 73
i have a question for the folks. i have read somewhere that the DA* lenses are actually full frame but pentax wont admit it publicly. and it makes me wonder when you look on the website it will say for instance that my 60-250 frames like a 90-375. has anyone tried any of them on an older film camera like the MZ-S or anything else ?
12-07-2012, 10:30 AM   #88
Site Supporter
Jean Poitiers's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lost in translation ...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,502
QuoteOriginally posted by nitehntr Quote
i have a question for the folks. i have read somewhere that the DA* lenses are actually full frame but pentax wont admit it publicly. and it makes me wonder when you look on the website it will say for instance that my 60-250 frames like a 90-375. has anyone tried any of them on an older film camera like the MZ-S or anything else ?
Bonjour, you can check it here ... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html - J
12-07-2012, 11:01 AM   #89
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
QuoteOriginally posted by nitehntr Quote
if the DA* lenses can be used backwards compatible i will get a full frame and use my older lenses also. if not i will stay with the K5. i am using an old manual focus SMC f4.5 500 MM with and without a 2X converter on my K5 and K10 now.
It sounds like the primes worked and the zooms significantly vignetted at one end of the zoom. It will be interesting to see how the corners/edges work on full frame. Are they really FF lenses or is the performance not acceptable when considering the cost of a FF camera and DA* lens.
12-07-2012, 11:12 AM   #90
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,533
QuoteQuote:
Well, I guess the question is how much improvement in resolution there is, even between the D600 and the D800.
Huge... the only question is do you need it. The picture on the left is a D800, in the blurry orange fabirc you can see the individual threads, that blurry orange you see on the left is the best any other camera besides the 645 can do. This is a 1:1 crop.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, ff, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What would you do if Pentax does not announce a FF for 2013? LeDave Pentax DSLR Discussion 125 08-08-2012 08:38 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 07-18-2012 10:09 PM
How does THIS impact your hopes for FF iCrop Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 27 06-05-2012 11:52 AM
Does this indicate a FF problem. Mychael Pentax K-5 9 11-20-2011 11:23 AM
If pentax release a FF, wouldn't they have to release a FF wideangle. pcarfan Photographic Technique 10 12-26-2009 04:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:27 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top